High Reproducibility of an Automated Measurement of Mobility for Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Conventional measures of spinal mobility used in the assessment of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), such as the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index and its components, are subject to interobserver variability. The University of Córdoba Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (UCOASMI) is a validated composite index based on a motion video-capture system, UCOTrack. Our objective was to assess its reproducibility in clinical practice settings. METHODS: We carried out an observational study of repeated measures in 3 centers. Video-capture systems were installed and adapted to clinical rooms. Patients with axSpA and stable disease were selected by consecutive stratified sampling [disease duration, sex, and the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI)]. Intraobserver reliability of the UCOASMI and of conventional measures was tested 3-5 days apart. For interobserver reliability, 3 patients from each center were evaluated in the other centers, within 3-7 days. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included (73% men, mean age 53 yrs, mean BASDAI 3.0). Interobserver and intraobserver ICC of the UCOASMI was 0.98. Conventional measurements showed lower but adequate reproducibility as well, except for interobserver reliability of lateral flexion (0.41), cervical rotation (0.61), and Schöber test (0.07), and intraobserver reliability of tragus-to-wall distance (0.30). CONCLUSION: Reproducibility of the UCOASMI seems very high, and apparently more reliable than conventional measures of mobility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".